Why Does Time Go Only One Direction?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- It seems that the arrow of time moves only from the past to the future, never from the future to the past. Why is that? There are several theories, from the obvious to the inscrutable, that attempt to explain this. In this episode I cover the thermodynamic, the cause-and-effect, the wave expansion, the cosmic, and the quantum theories for the arrow of time.
None of them, I hate to say, bode well for the prospects of time travel.
great explanation!
Time and entropy only go in one direction for a reason. Time may be an emergent from entropy.
I feel like most of these theories are consequences of the arrow of time and not the cause. I always find every explanation for why time moves only forward to be very strange. They seem to be based on biases that only exist because we are part of that reality
I agree in spirit with you and Mendel - all of these explanations feel a little like the Texas sharpshooter fallacy -or maybe it’s the post hoc fallacy??
Energy doesn’t have an arrow to follow because the atom doesn’t die out… it’s going and going and… where is the entropy of the atom?
Thought provoking question. Energy itself doesn’t have a direction or arrow; it’s conserved according to the law of conservation of energy, meaning energy cannot be created or destroyed. Atoms don’t "die out" in the sense that they lose all their energy or cease to exist under normal conditions. However, atoms can undergo various processes such as radioactive decay or fusion, transforming into different atoms and releasing or absorbing energy. Thus, the entropy of the atom is tied to the processes it undergoes and the broader system it is part of.
Yes. I've set all my GFs clocks to 15min in the past so we're always on time
if you blieve the ufo scientists time goes all over the place
Interesting subject , I had listened to The Order of Time by Carlo Rovelli on Audio book . It still makes me pause When i think about it .
Never knew of the radiative arrow, thanks great explanation why time travel is Sci fiction. Ignoring black holes time/space anomaly and string theory of multiverses
I always learn so much from you!!
None of these explanations seem to explain the real cause of why time only moves forwards. All of those theories really just sound like circle loop observations to me. Just small variations of "Things happen over time, therefore time moves forwards"
Entropy increases as time moves forwards, so therefore time moves forwards.
Causes happen before effects when time moves forwards, therefore time moves forwards. As time moves forwards, you gain more memories of the past so therefore time moves forwards.
Wave functions collapse after observations when time moves forwards so therefore time moves forwards.
Very unsatisfying! Isn't it the case that IF time moved backwards, entropy would decrease? I think you should not try to explain why that can not happen by just observing that it doesn't happen while you move forwards in time.
Time is simply the vibrational rate of a particle. A particle cant suddenly stop and vibrate in the other direction. To reverse time all particles and waves would have to change direction.
I have not heard of this idea -- will have to look into it
So are you saying like "particles vibrate in certain way as time moves forwards, therefore time can not move backwards"?
But the particles vibrate OVER TIME. So how does that explain anything? So IF arrow of time was reversed, particles WOULD vibrate and move in reverse. And if time was stopped, they would not vibrate or move, right?
I did not find an explanation of why that can't happen.
@@81Mendel I don’t see time being independent. I see it as simply measuring the rate of vibration.
@@ooo-vc4xl Rate of vibrations indicates things vibrating over time. Without time, there would be no movement because things always move over time. Things don't seem to move when no time passes. Without movement there would be no vibrations and therefore no rate of vibrations either.
Else can you explain how vibrations could happen over no time?
Sorry to be so nit picky but... We cannot change the future. We can change what we think the future will be - but even that change is imagined. The future doesn't exist from our perspective, so any action of will that you do is an unfolding of the present moment. Also, if you take Einstein seriously, then the future already exists - we are simply not privy to it. No matter how you look at it, there is no changing of a future because any future you imagine is just that - what you imagine, because like you said we don't remember the future - it's unknown.
Time is not a dimension. It is the scaffolding that information participates on. That scaffolding can either be positive (expanding) or negative (contacting). Positive information participates on positive scaffolding and negative information participates on negative scaffolding. Negative information manifests when positive information passes into a black hole and crosses its time horizon, subsequent to passing the event horizon. This negative information is what some people refer to as dark matter or dark energy. It cannot be directly observed or detected because it only shares the same coordinates as we do for an instant too short to be measured. That intersection creates the reality we perceive.
I agree that Time is not a dimension like we experience spacial dimensions, although its seen like that by most. Take time travel for example, like with big objects with a lot of mass compared to quantum scale, that would be totally unlogic. And the question if time is emergent, well time could be more dimensional and only the time dimension of spacetime is likely to be emergent but thats not likely the origin of time, its a dimensional branch of time, as I think spacetime it self is emergent also.
Again I must plead ignorance to a lot of what you say. Maybe I can ask one question what will help me understand more: Is time a thing? Does it have the ontological status of "real"?
@@thehistoryofbeinghuman6597 Our Universe consists of information. Each unit of information reports (itself) to a set of coordinates. Those coordinates determine relative location. The scaffolding that supports that reporting is what we perceive as time. This scaffolding can vary in its characteristics, based on how much information is reporting in a given location. The more reporting, the greater the mass, which has the effect of creating what we call gravity. Likewise, the rate at which information changes its location also has the same effect, so very fast moving matter also impacts the scaffolding. This is why high mass changes relitivisit time, as does the speed of a mass. The scaffolding is taxed as it has to compensate for the greater participation of that information upon it (like power being pulled from an energy source as an electric motor runs faster). Time enables information to manifest itself into existence (as we perceive it). Time enables that. Time itself, without information reporting to it is only potential, soft of a blueprint or set of laws (rules).
A dimension is a measurable unit or extent of some kind. Time indeed is a dimension. We can measure it. By default……..
Time comes from a universe expanding into space. It’s in motion and making more room.
That takes many things, including the time that is created in the expanding space. It doesn’t happen instantaneously and we are in motion within it. That’s time.
The quantum field, waves, foam, whatever you call it is expanding but is everywhere at once. It does not experience time.
We are in motion on this rock and it is in an expanding space. Time has to be emergent from this process. It’s not instantaneous.
It is created for standard model matter in an expanding quantum foam of EM radiation.
@@danielpaulson8838 Motion is a human construct. Information participates on the scaffolding of a time line, coordinates change, inflation's location changes. We only perceive these reassignments as motion because we cannot grasp the concept of the past, present, and future as one.
classy video!!!
The basic principle of the universe is repeatlessness. Nothing exists twice. This A is not this A and you are already a different person by the time you finish reading this.
Our physical Reality, Stuff-side, is a Motion-Ocean,
Time is the Shadow of Motion.
Time do Only exist in the Consciousness,
of Living Beings.
Well, entropy is overated. Gravity counterbalance entropy... Many scientists claim entropy flow only toward disorder, but it's a simplistic view, take water for example, if it loose energy it cristalize in an orderly fashion. There are many example like this. Also the big bang likely never happened, redshift is very likely cause by a relative speed of light ( look for VSL), it's more related to optics and refraction. This way you don't need expansion and dark energy, light is just time dilated. I think terminology is what is confusing, like saying time is the forth dimension. It is mathematically to calculate motion, but it's not a physical dimension. In the end Time is just a the units of measure of a sequence, and it's flow is relative to the observer point of view, affected by gravity.. or relative speed between two clocks. That being said I gave this response because I think you cannot talk about time without talking about the speed of light, that is effectively the frame of referance.
>take water for example, if it loose energy it crystallize in an ordinarily fashion.
Good example. But you ignore the heat ( kinetic) energy. The energy is scattered to the Universe. When I look at the kinetic energy and water crystal together,the disorder is bigger after the crystallization because of Universe-wide scattered energy, or ?
I am too stupid to understand why we need dark energy.
When the arrow of time has only one direction, the Universe could be repeating. If our Universe were n-dimensional sphere, waves, caused by Big Bang spread along the surface of sphere. After long enough time, however, the waves add together at the other side of sphere, which would be the next Big Bang. If it were a case, we might be repeating everything over again and again and again :)
Tell me you don’t have a science degree but watch UA-cam videos without saying “I don’t have a degree but watch videos.”
Not sure I understand -- is the formation of ice from water not consistent with the laws of thermodynamic?
@@thehistoryofbeinghuman6597 Liquid is more disorderly at molecular level than ice, which crystallize and molecules rearrange in and organized way, while energy (temperature) is flowing out. So entropy as i understand must be seen as a generalized phenomenon but again that's false since gravity counter balances it.
@@thehistoryofbeinghuman6597 Thermodynamic is just how energy radiate in a system. Entropy is postulated to be a consequence of molecular chaos. it's obviously not always the case, and inversely related to a system disipating energy in the case of water.
There is one more, and and deeper notion about the arrow of time in fundamental physics, and has to do with the spread of quamtum entaglememt...
Please elaborate this sounds interesting
@@Aspenpod you should learn about the notion of von neuman entropy, i recomend You the following video of pbs-pacetime: "How quamtum entaglememt creates entropy"
These days I tend toward idealism. I think mind is fundamental in the world, and the physical world arises from the activity of mind rather than mind arising from physical processes. And time goes the way it does because of how we form memories. Consider events A, B, and C that occur in that order. What does it mean to say that? Well, it means that when it's all said and done we have a memory of a) none of the events having happened, b) event A having happened but not B or C, c) events A and B having happened but not C, and finally d) events A, B, and C all having happened. We have no memory of B having happened but not A or C, and so on.
I think that's all there is to it. And that process, being "of mind," is entirely OUTSIDE of the perceptions which we call the physical world. The fact that the microscopic laws of physics (which are really just math relations we use to model the behavior of our perceptions) can run equally well both ways is of no relevance at all. Our memories define the arrow of time.
People may balk at the idea of "mind" cooking up a physical world. But I'll remind you that exactly that happens every time you dream, or when you hallucinate if you ever have. We don't regard those things as part of reality because later when we converse with other people we realize that we and we alone had that experience - it wasn't something shared by others. Reality is that set of perceptions that we have JOINTLY, or that we can readily believe could have been had jointly, if others had been present.
There are even clinical cases of patients with dissociative personality disorder who had dreams in which multiple of their dissociated personalities were present. When interviewed later, each dissociated alter remembered that dream from their own point of view. So the patient's mind cooked up a physical world in which multiple separate conscious entities participated. It seems quite plausible to me that that's what the physical world is.
I'll also remind you that ultimately all we have to base our science on is our perceptions. Science has no access to anything beyond those perceptions, and cannot truly know their origins. We cannot, in any way, PROVE that there "really is" an objective physical world out there, entirely separate from us and our minds, that forms the basis of our perceptions. The idealist proposal is absolutely just as plausible. Perhaps more so.
Also, we know for a fact that each of us thinks, feels, and exercises free will. That's what minds do. So, if the "rest of the world" outside of all of us is in fact the residue (the non-dissociated portion) of a universal mind, then it's reasonable to suppose that quantum randomness is simply the exercise of free will by that mind. One unified mechanism then explains an awful lot. Furthermore, the idea that we are all part of a single universal consciousness offers a basis for Jung's collective unconscious, for instincts, and for many other things.
Finally, one might ask why, if this is all so, we perceive the particular physical world we perceive. Why THESE laws of physics, etc. I'll refer you to the marvelous paper by Christian Baumgarten - "How To (Un-) Quantum Mechanics." In this paper Baumgarten provides a completely generic model of reality - flexible enough to model ANYTHING, including a universal mind, and demonstrates that simply by demanding the existence of a single conserved quantity the laws of physics as we know them are then REQUIRED mathematical consequences. In this case they'd just be the dynamics of some portion of the mental activity of the universal consciousness, but they'd nonetheless follow all the right patterns and the idea that they'd lead to the perceptions we wind up having is not that far-fetched.
On the surface this all sounds flaky and far-fetched, but it's actually not. Especially given that we KNOW minds exist and that they feel, think, and exercise free will, and we KNOW that minds can create the perceptions of a physical world. And that we KNOW modern science has utterly and completely failed to provide a model for HOW mind can emerge from physics. If you find yourself put off by these thoughts, I invite you to spend some time considering them. Ask yourself if they're REALLY preposterous, or is it more that you've just taught yourself to reject anything that doesn't neatly fit into the mainstream view.
Finally, consider that the idea of minds as fundamental is really no more "out there" than the idea of quantum fields as fundamental. No one explains what a quantum field actually is - they're simply postulated, along with the rules for their behavior. We're asked to simply accept these things, on the basis of the fact that we wind up making good predictions if we do. Well, idealism can motivate and explain all the same scientific data. You KNOW your own mind exists.
Very thought-provoking comment -- I will have to look into what you mention here. Reminds me of something my wife showed me that you might be interested in -- futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe
The window must only break when the rock hits it except when Chuck Norris think's about breaking the window with a rock in which case the window will break before the rock hits it!
Chuck Norris is not bound by physics
@@thehistoryofbeinghuman6597 hahaha ROFL 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 love it 😍
But if time did indeed move backwards, then the window would be fixed as the rock flew out of it and into Chuck's hand. Why can this not happen? And don't try to use entropy to explain. Entropy only increases as time moves forwards.
According to Relativity, if information can propagate faster than light, then it could be bounced off a moving body and arrive before it was sent. We present a paper just peer reviewed and accepted by the EM journal IRECAP for publication. The experiment shows an EM pulse transmitted across space with no observable time delay. EM theory is also presented showing this is expected. This experiment proves information can be transmitted instantaneously across space. So is time travel possible?
This experiment shows that the speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Time and space are absolute. Only the present exists, the past is gone, and the future is yet to be. So time travel is not possible!
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*UA-cam presentation of above arguments: ua-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/v-deo.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
So, what medium is you information encoded in?? What "thing" is your information, information is not a fundamental particle, fundamental particles have descriptions about them that is their information. So what new thing g do you have it can not be light? Or anything solid? Axions? To bounce off of so.ething it would have to interact with normal matter, so that rules out any of the 2 dark things we have. You post also started off with the word "if" perhaps use "maybe" like "maybe ther is a way to...." not an "if" that requires something failr we'll established to be wrong. That makes it that much harder to get people to pay attention as there is so much out there to sift through that some criteria has to be used to discard some of the noise.
@@JB-kk4pvIn the last paper with a link, we transmitted a EM pulse from a transmitter to a detector and measured the time delay due to propagation across 1.5 m distance. No time delay was observed. This is the paper that has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the IRECAP journal. Since a pulse is digital information, we have shown that information in EM fields propagates instantaneously in the nearfield. This is completely incompatible with Relativity and also shows that the speed of light is not a constant as once thought.
Wow you are way out of my league. I will watch the videos and thank you for posting!
🤔 Our reality is not 3 dimensional. It's 4 dimensional. Because of time. 3 dimensional thinking is Newtonian. Since Einstein upgraded our understanding in physics, maybe we should upgrade our language in communication about physics. Just a thought.
On that note, there aren't a few theories as to why time flows only one direction, since they haven't been sufficiently corroborated. And as such, we have a few hypotheses as to why time moves in only one direction.
More precise communication with the correct terminology will make you a far better teacher as well as make your students far better at learning and able to critically think.
David Hume.
time = relative duration
You can't go back in time because you don't reverse a duration...it's just a duration. Let's stop the nonsense.
Sorry Einstein.
However you can increase or reduce a relative duration. Time dilation.
We create a framework for time by using a repeated, consistent, cyclic action/interaction with respect to the system(s) around it.
For example: we use one complete rotation of the earth on it's own axis as 1 day.
we use one complete orbit of earth around the sun as a year.
We use the spin of a particle or atom to give us a higher degree of accuracy and consistency. etc.
All are relative duration's. Relative with respect to the systems, interactions and duration's we compare them with.
I could elaborate further. I think it's unnecessary at this point.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong. It would give me more knowledge.
Don C.
My emphasis now is tying off loose ends in physics.
I believe I can describe the underlying mechanisms of phenomenon not presently well understood i.e. double split, entanglement, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, gravity, magnetism, space, light, time and so on.
Time was just one problem I've resolved to what I believe is it's most concise definition today. I've put it out there for scrutiny.
Please feel free to comment.
Don C.
I see what you are saying, but isn't saying time is a relative duration tautological? ie., isn't duration the time over which something occurs?
@@thehistoryofbeinghuman6597 Time= Relative duration.
This is the definition of time. A definition that hasn't previously been iterated.
For generations until now, even the most respected scientists haven't fully understood how time works. Any formula could be considered tautological when there is an equal sign between what you are defining and how you define it.
@@thehistoryofbeinghuman6597 I've also defined how time is derived from the relative number of a repeated, consistent, cyclic action/interaction(s), relative to other actions/interactions we compare it to. This sets up a framework. Is there any other way to define it?
So we could also say Time=Relative duration=How many repeated cycles of what we are using as the measurement have occurred, relative to the action/interaction we are comparing it to.
The goal is to understand how time is derived, what it actually is, and how it works, definitively.
@@thehistoryofbeinghuman6597 And I do appreciate your feedback...Thank you.
Entropy *TEND* to increase, it's not a fatality. After a very long period of time, there is a good chance that entropy decreases again significantly. Which means that with time, usable energy can be "created" again. It would have been nice to mention that.
Yes it's hard to make final and absolute predictions -- all we have is what we have 'so far'.
Time does NOT go. And does not go anywhere. And it does not come from anywhere. Show me the movement of ''going'' time and give the definition of time. Entropy is not time because entropy has different values of rates. Otherwise, you show total hogwash.
I agree that the idea of time "coming and going" is metaphorical. The idea of entropy being synonymous with time is not mine, it is merely one reason offered for why what we call time moves in only one direction.
@@thehistoryofbeinghuman6597 OK. Let's say the time ''moves'' in one direction. So, what is that direction? Left, right, up or down? Or maybe askew?
It's not time that goes in one direction, it's us.